Sabotage

The inside story of how the Union government, experts and automakers have conspired to compromise Delhi's public health and to sabotage the Supreme Court order on CNG

The past five months have been incredible. When we launched our campaign for clean air in 1996, with the publication of the book, Slow Murder , we had no idea that we were entering into a realm of high intrigue and deception. In all our years of public work, we had never seen such powerful vested interests at work, and indeed the lengths and depths they are prepared to go to compromise public health.

The one thrill is that we have achieved what we set out to do, at least to some extent. The air of Delhi is cleaner. People can feel the difference. It is not that pollution levels have dropped dramatically, but that we have stemmed the rot and stabilised pollution. Delhi has added over 200,000 vehicles in the last year itself and it has more vehicles than Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai put together. But the capital's pollution levels are coming down unlike the other cities, which are choking and wheezing because of unhealthy air.

The saga of saboteurs has been fascinating learning. When we published our cover story 'Saboteurs' (Down To Earth , Vol 9, No 20, March 15) on the implementation of the Supreme Court (sc) order of July 1998 to convert the Delhi's public transport to compressed natural gas (cng), we hardly noticed the devious role of the greatest saboteur, the ministry of petroleum and natural gas (mpng). Till April 2001, it did nothing -- probably because the ministry's high command did not think the court order would be implemented (as its then secretary pointed out). There was never any question of shortage of gas to supply Delhi and certainly the fact that gas reserves of India were depleting was never the issue. Till March, the disinformation campaign centred on the unreliability of the "untested" technology. cng buses had not made it to the roads in large numbers and experts came up with wild statements that politicians lapped up -- buses would blow up in Delhi's extraordinary summer, the buses would not drive up the inclines of flyovers, etc. But by May, there were enough buses on the roads to vindicate the technology.

Now a new game was in town. We learnt how easy it was to tell a lie and how difficult to dig up the truth. Three main tricks were played. The first strategy was to confuse the public with an alternative that did not exist. The Tata Energy Research Institute (teri) led this plank. It advocated the use of ultra low sulphur diesel (ulsd), which has less than 0.005 per cent sulphur as the alternative in public. But when asked to make a recommendation to the court, through the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (epca), it quietly recommended low sulphur diesel (0.05 per cent) -- which is currently in use in Delhi. The idea of the missing zero was brilliant. It completely confounded the media and, of course, was purposely used by the politicians to promote "clean diesel" which was a fancy terminology for current diesel.

mpng led the second brigade to push the line that there was no gas. Oops, we forgot. Sorry, there is no gas in the country. The Gas Authority of India Ltd (gail), which reports to the petroleum ministry, was given the gag order. The plight of bus and autorickshaw drivers waiting all night, maybe even longer, made hearts bleed. cng was anti-poor. cng was unworkable. Politicians jumped in to fight for justice. The anger against cng grew. Brilliant.

The third plank was to attack cng itself. As the air of Delhi got visibly cleaner, convoluted science and models were used by teri to show that we should forget that we could breathe better. Actually the air was getting worse, they said. If there was any improvement it was because of the monsoon. Forget that the Central Pollution Control Board (cpcb) figures showed marked improvements. In this attack, the prestige of an Indian Institute of Technology (iit) was roped in as its professor, Dinesh Mohan, with funds from oil and motor companies went on a binge using assumptions and models to discredit cng . So great was the confusion caused that diesel suddenly was being viewed as clean (it only causes asthma said one newspaper) while cng was the devil (it causes cancer). The Delhi Transport Corporation (dtc), which is certainly not known for its agility of action, was last seen rubbing out the signage on its buses, so that instead of ' cng pollution free bus' it only read as cng bus. Of course, at times with the Freudian slip of the brush, some buses now read, "polluting cng bus."

In all this disinformation was the key. Stories were planted with impunity in the media. For instance, it was widely and frequently reported that the ministry of environment and forests (mef) had filed an affidavit going against its committee, the epca , and that it supported current diesel as a clean fuel. It was said so often that it became the truth, at least in the public mind. We found out later that the ministry had done no such thing. In fact, it had opposed the diesel lobby.

What remains unclear is what solution the anti- cng wallahs are advocating. After all we were not in a high school debate on cng versus diesel. The operation was to find solutions to air pollution in the city. All written presentations to the epca recommended the use of current diesel as clean fuel. There is absolutely no scientific basis that this will reduce air pollution given Delhi's extremely high bus density, pollution levels and growing number of vehicles. teri still advocates ulsd publicly but only because it knows that the government will not import or produce clean, near-sulphurless diesel, and that the technology of particulate traps (which can bring down pollution levels) is still far from being implemented in the country. Tata Engineering (telco) in its written submission to epca also says that in any case it will take two years for it to manufacture a Euro II compliant bus with a simple particulate trap. The mpng, of course, is even more obvious. It wants current diesel and only just that. Nothing more.

"We cannot have buses on one fuel only. No other city in the world has done this. We should not dictate a technology option. Let the market decide. We must have a comprehensive approach." Pearls of wisdom. Who can disagree with their sagacity? But can they be implemented in ungoverned India? Can the court simply say, follow the emission norms, use any technology, just make sure it cleans the air of Delhi? Let there be a mix of cng and diesel buses. Implement your own law. That would be as good as saying, let the government govern. What a good idea!

What will happen next is hard to say. Director-general of teri, R K Pachauri, in a recent article says that public decisions cannot be based on personal ill-health. But then, what should public decisions be based on? Profits, deep pockets?

-- Right To Clean Air Campaign Team
Centre for Science and Environment

To contrast with Goudpali, residents some villages in Muzaffarnagar and Meerut, in Uttar Pradesh, lying on the banks of river Ganga, have been lucky. The government may not have come forward to help them but neither has it intervened to undo the community work that they undertook. The villages have come together to build a bund on the banks of river Ganga, saving the area from floods that used to wreak havoc every year, destroying their crops.

Tired of waiting for the irrigation department to help, the villagers took the matter in their own hands. They built an 11.5 kilometre bund running through the villages of Ahmedwala, Sherpur, Shujapur, Ramawala, Jeevanpuri, Hassanpuri and Kheda, besides others.

The people sought help from Baba Kashmira Singh, a known philanthropist at Tapovan Gurudwara in Amritsar. "Three years back, we approached Baba Kashmira to help us in building the bund," says Mandeep Singh of Ahmedwala. Baba Kashmira sent Baba Jagtar Singh to Ahmedwala, who motivated the villagers in the region to take on the task of building a bund by volunteering labour.

"Motivated by him, we started collecting funds and came forward for shraamdan (voluntary service)," says Khatun, a Kallandar Gujjar from Deobhal. Slowly, a systematic approach to collect funds was set up. All farmers whose land would be benefited from the bund were asked to contribute Rs 500 per year per acre of land and a bag of paddy for each acre affected. The farmers willingly contributed. "Even today, we give money to the common pool as our yield has increased ten folds", says Kripal Singh of Ahmedwala. Work began by hiring tractors, but now villagers have bought and donated five tractors for the purpose. Many sugar mills from Meerut to Muzzafarnagar, who buy the sugarcane produced in the region have also donated money.

Today the 3.048 metres high and 9.144 metres wide earthen wall of protection stands testimony to the villager's labour. And the villagers are not ready to stop at just this. Enthused by the idea of the community managing resources and the benefits that are to be gained from it, they are not ready to stop here. They plan to build the bund over the entire distance of 25 kilometres up to Hastinapur and also make it a permanent structure. The state government had projected that a project developed for the same work as the villagers had done would cost Rs 32 crore. The villagers did it for a mere Rs 42 lakh.

"At present, we are making thokkar (dykes) with boulders and wire mesh to strengthen the bund", says Gurjinder Singh, resident of . To make the thokkar , the villagers spent Rs 50,000 while the government made a similar structure on the Bijnor barrage spending Rs 13.5 lakh.

Pouring benefits
The annual dismaying ritual of loosing standing crop to floods has been put a stop to. Naturally, the harvest, today, is much higher. Farmers grow sugarcane, paddy, and fresh vegetables in the fertile plains. "River Ganga has blessed us again," says Gurjinder Singh, resident of Ahmedwala. Farmers are earning about Rs 74,000 per ha of cultivated land. Earlier their produce was not even 20 per cent of this amount. The villagers are able to take two crops -- a rarity earlier.

The irrigation department officials are happy too. "Though all the technical details have not been followed, we are satisfied with the bund as it has stopped flooding in the region," says an irrigation official. D P Singh, junior executive engineer in the irrigation department, says, "The bund has been made at a distance of 100 metres while under the Irrigation Act guidelines, such structures should be made at a distance of 450-600 metres". He gives his 'expert' comments: "If a flood with high velocity comes, then the bund may not be able to resist the force and could breach." He however goes on to say that till today, the bund has withstood the pressure well. The department did not provide any technical support for the bund. S K Gupta, the draftsman with the department gives this for as an excuse: "Had we provided the technical support, then the norms would have to be followed, so we did not lend any support." However, villagers say that they asked for 500 tractors of boulders, which was not supplied. The sugar mills in the vicinity then came forward to help them and supplied the boulders.

Also, unlike the case in Goudpali, the government departments are not complaining about the 2-3 kilometre stretch through which the bund runs. The irrigation department officials acknowledge that they are not in a position to complain. The people's effort has also found support from the local mla , Suresh Chander, who has gone ahead and highlighted the achievements of the villagers in the state assembly. Baba Jagtar Singh, has in fact been felicitated by the district administration, for his efforts. The local member of parliament, Avtar Singh Bhadana has donated Rs 51,000 for the bunding activity.

The irrigation department has woken up and is proposing a project for a 16.5 kilometre long bund. Officials at the irrigation department say that as the people have already made the bund, they will help to strengthen it. People's labour has shown colour at least in these villages.

The Supreme Court had specifically asked Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (epca) to examine if "low sulphur diesel can be regarded as clean fuel" ... "as also to indicate as to which fuel can be regarded as a clean fuel, which does not cause pollution or is otherwise injurious to health." The court in its order explained, "it was submitted to us that in some other countries ultra low sulphur diesel which has sulphur content of not more than 0.001 per cent is now available." Is this an option available to us? The Bhure Lal committee was asked to examine. The directions were clear -- to look for environment-friendly alternatives to cng .

epca began work on this report in early April only to submit it, after seeking an extension from the court in late June. It received representations from over 15 different agencies -- from Union ministries, automobile companies, bus operators and research institutions -- and held detailed discussions. Those who did not come themselves were invited.

Pushing for diesel
But very soon it became clear that all the interested parties had only one thing to say: accept 500 ppm sulphur diesel as a clean fuel. Even public proponents of ultra low sulphur diesel like teri recommended in its written presentation to the authority that epca should accept 500 ppm sulphur diesel -- existing diesel in Delhi -- as clean fuel. No other alternative was even proposed (see table: Who wants what?).

But what evidence did these agencies have that 500 ppm diesel would clean up Delhi's air, asked epca . In its presentation, mpng claimed that using 500 ppm diesel "will reduce the particulate emissions by over 80 per cent as compared to earlier fuels" and this will clean up Delhi's air. When asked how they had calculated this, the official replied, "this is our guess." In perfect consonance, oil companies said, "we estimate as well that 500 ppm sulphur diesel combined with Euro II (Bharat II equivalent emission norms which will be introduced in Delhi from October 2001 for commercial vehicles) will reduce emissions by more than 80 per cent over current emission levels." mpng and oil industry were totally in line with each other.

epca then examined as to what kind of technology would be needed to bring down emissions. It must be noted that clean diesel per se does not lead to much emission reduction. But bringing down sulphur levels in diesel allows manufacturers to instal a device that traps particulates and thus brings emissions down. But the efficiency of the trap is dependent on the quantity of sulphur in diesel. The us , for instance, is mandating 15 ppm sulphur diesel for use with traps (see box: Zeroing in).

The submissions on this issue saw an interesting play. Strangely enough, only the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (siam) said that ulsd (10 ppm) allows the particulate trap to be fitted. It recommended that Euro II engine, when it runs on ultra low sulphur diesel (10 ppm) with electronic controls and aftertreatment devices including particulate traps, will be as good as a cng engine as far as particulate emissions are concerned.

All others claimed that the traps -- which they called by different names to mislead and confuse -- would work with higher sulphur content.

• telco claimed the us multinational Engelhard's catalytic soot filter (csf) would work with 350 ppm sulphur diesel. But said that it would take two years for it to begin supply of buses fitted with csf filters as the treatment devices have to be tailored for specific engine application and for Indian operational conditions.

• teri suggested also Englelhard's diesel oxidation catalyst (doc) which they claimed would work effectively with 500 ppm diesel.

When asked to produce test reports on these claims, the agencies waffled. Not surprisingly. A worldwide review of experiences done by the Right To Clean Air Campaign Team of cse found that almost all countries were experimenting with 10-50 ppm sulphur with these devices.

The most effective device is multinational Johnson Matthey's Continuously Regenerating Trap (crt) but it needs almost sulphurless diesel. The usepa was working with Engelhard's product, the Catalysed Diesel Particulate Filter, but had also specified that the "engine must be operated with a fuel that contains a sulphur content of no more than 15 ppm."

The petroleum ministry rejected outright any suggestion of bringing in 10 ppm sulphur diesel saying it was "limited in use to Sweden, Germany and Switzerland and that there were problems of trade, logistics and matching engine technology."

Out of gas or full of gas?
In its representation, mpng informed epca that they had estimated cng demand for 232,000 vehicles in Delhi by June 2002 including 10,000 buses, 150,000 light transport vehicles and 70,000 cars. The total requirement of these would be 12 times the present requirement and this would require major upgradation in the system including the Hazira-Bijaipur-Jagdishpur (hbj ) pipeline. This is for the first time that mpng talked of a shortfall in supply -- a month after the deadline set by the Supreme Court expired (see box: Contemptible laxity).

Besides, they added, " cng would be more expensive than petrol and diesel in the post Administrative Price Mechanism scenario scheduled to come into effect from April 1, 2002." The officials could not explain why this would happen given that the natural gas price is not within the ambit of the administrative price mechanism as it is not subsidised.

mpng claimed that, as per the Supreme Court order, they are supposed to meet the cng demand for buses only but not for autos and taxis which can be converted to clean fuels (read currently available petrol with one per cent benzene and 0.05 per cent sulphur diesel). This would clean the air, they said. Interestingly, when the mpng made its presentation to epca, it brought with it all the top officials of the oil industry. But not one official from the gas industry, which, being a public sector concern, also reports to the ministry. The interests of the public sector Gas Authority of India Limited (gail) had been set aside.

Only alternative: Accept status quo.

Epca 's report on Clean Fuels, which it submitted to the Supreme Court in early July 2001, argues that no hydrocarbon fuel can be specified as a "clean fuel" which does not cause pollution or is not otherwise injurious to health. But instead, it defined a category of fuels called environmentally acceptable fuels, which could be promoted in heavily polluted areas like Delhi.

Importantly, the authority made a distinction between fuel standards and emission norms needed for "hot spots" -- extremely polluted areas. It argued, "Delhi is in an air pollution hot spot area and requires special approaches to tackle air pollution." This would set the policy for other cities grappling with severe pollution as well.

The authority then examined different fuels and available emission control technologies to arrive at a package of alternative, environmentally acceptable fuels. It said:

l cng, lpg and propane can be considered environmentally acceptable fuels.

l Current petrol supplied to Delhi contains no lead and low benzene (less than 1 per cent). But to call it environmentally acceptable, it is necessary to use catalytic converters for treatment of exhaust gases, assure adulteration does not take place and further reduce polluting constituents like sulphur, aromatics and olefins.

l ulsd with 10 ppm sulphur and low polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (pah ) content will be significantly less polluting provided it is used in combination with particulate traps and catalytic converters. It will also be necessary to ensure that ulsd does not get adulterated. In this case, ulsd can be regarded as an environmentally acceptable fuel.

epca , however, did not buckle under pressure to accept lsd as a clean fuel. Its position was that " lsd is not an environmentally acceptable fuel since it does not permit effective use of exhaust treatment devices like particulate traps. Evidently, there is need for further improvement in the quality of diesel as also of measures to prevent adulteration."

To take care of inter-state commercial vehicles, moving in and out of the city, epca suggested a way out -- temporarily. It agreed that these vehicles could run on 500 ppm sulphur diesel. But, the authority underlined that this would be regarded as "transitional fuel" permitted for a limited period only.

This period should be as short as possible because of adverse public health effects, it stressed. "A time bound programme should be drawn up to reduce the sulphur content down to a level at which exhaust treatment system including particulate traps can be effectively used. This level will have to be 30 ppm sulphur or less with controls on pah content of diesel," said the authority's report.

Charting a clean course
In its report, epca also laid out an action plan to implement the court order to convert commercial vehicles by September 30, 2001. Most importantly, given the truncated governance and lack of accountability, it named the different agencies that need to be directed to ensure the effective implementation.

It recommended:
• Provide an adequate and enhanced allocation of natural gas for Delhi's transport sector and this allocation should keep pace with the growing demand.
Agency: MPNG

• Current infrastructure for cng distribution should be strengthened and increased from its total 71 dispensing stations including 38 daughter stations, as on July 2001, to 90 dispensing stations by December 2001, all consisting of mother/ on-line stations and daughter-booster stations, with a proper distribution across the city. igl should ensure gas pressure of more than 200 bars in all the cng stations.
Agency: MPNG and IGL

• Prepare contingency plans to deal with the eventuality of disruption in gas supply for buses and a plan of action should be filed in the Supreme Court.
Agency: MPNG and IGL

• The deadline of September 30, 2001 for converting all vehicles should be extended, giving reasonable time for delivery of chassis and bus bodies. Those who still continue to ply on diesel beyond that date may be allowed to do so, for a further period of three months, in the interest of the commuting public, but should be fined heavily and punitively.
Agency: Delhi Government

l A ceiling should be put on the number of tourist permits given to inter-state vehicles, equivalent to 1.5 times the normal annual growth rate of this category for the last five years.
Agency: Delhi Government

• Financial incentives should be provided to bus operators purchasing new original equipment manufacturers (oem) and retrofitted cng buses in the form of sales tax and excise tax exemption and low-interest loans with the subsidies ideally recovered from enhanced road taxes on private vehicles like cars and scooters and a tax on a polluting fuel like diesel.
Agency: Union Ministry of Finance,
Delhi Government

The cleanest among all Emissions from a CNg bus are much lower even Euro 4, except for carbon monoxide(which still meets Euro 2 norms)
	Y ear of implementation	Particulate matter	Hydro carbons	Nitrogen oxides	Carbon monoxide
Euro 1	1993	0.4	1.23	9.0	4.9
Euro 2	1996	0.15	1.1	7.0	4.0
Euro 3	2000	0.10	0.66	5.0	2.1
Euro 4	2005	0.02	0.46	3.5	1.50
Emissions from CNGbus of Ashok Leyland(stoichiometric engine with a three -waycatalytic converter)		0.014	0.04 (non-methane hydrocarbon)	3.24	3.12

The recommendations were not acceptable to the diesel lobby. As bjp leader and former chief minister of Delhi Madan Lal Khurana put it, "the recommendations of the Bhure Lal committee on hiking diesel prices are alarming and unacceptable."

The entire attempt was then to find ways of subverting or undermining the epca report. The petroleum secretary reportedly said in the meeting convened by the prime minister to discuss the cng tangle, that the epca report has to be countered. He and his minister, Ram Naik, then suggested that another committee should be formed, this time under the chairpersonship of R A Mashelkar, head of csir , to device a "comprehensive" auto-fuel policy. As many newspapers reported, cynically, "yet another committee".

Ram Naik's Ram Rajya
Ram naik is a state capitalist. He oversees state companies. He is busy distributing state largesse. The ministry of petroleum and natural gas (mpng) , the ministry he heads, has been busy distributing natural gas to all and sundry through the Gas Linkages Committee, responsible for allocating natural gas to different users, even after the July 28, 1998 Supreme Court order. These include Essar Oil Ltd, Reliance Refineries Ltd, Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd, National Thermal Power Corporation (ntpc) and others. Even the prime minister's constituency, Lucknow, and the minister of state for petroleum, Santosh Gangwar's constituency, Bareilly, have been graciously allocated natural gas for cooking purposes.br>
But Ram Naik is busy arguing there is no gas to meet the Supreme Court's order. If pushed, mpng can give cng to buses but not autos, taxis or cars. This is not all. Naik has been busy raising other fears. One, the entire city's bus fleet running on cng will come to a halt if the gas pipeline bursts or is even under repair. Two, cng prices will shoot up once the administrative price mechanism for petro-fuels is dismantled. The epca considered all these arguments but found them either unfounded or that they can be dealt with, of course, if there is a will to do it.

There is no shortage of gas per se . It is merely a question of allocating enough of it to meet the transport needs of Delhi on a priority basis that needs a mere 1.13 million cubic meter (mcum) of gas out of the hbj pipeline's capacity of 33.4 mcum in the initial years. Ironically, even as public transport is starving of gas, it is being supplied to five-star hotels and affluent households in posh South Delhi colonies where substituting lpg with natural gas will not make any difference to air pollution levels.

But why are there such long lines already forcing autodrivers to stand for hours on end in the sweltering heat of Delhi? Queues had already begun to form by March 2000 when the court hearings were taking place. Let us look at the track record of the MPNG since it started interfering. The ministry not only failed to ensure that all the 80 CNG stations mandated by the Supreme Court were built in time, the quality of the stations built was also poor. About 50 per cent of the CNG stations had no compressors. As a result, they dispensed gas at low pressure and left the tank partly empty - something which no auto driver wants. The result is that they all go to a few stations with compressors resulting in long lines in front of them. Compare the situation in Mumbai and Delhi. In Mumbai, there are only 24 CNG stations and all have compressors. In Delhi, there are 75 stations and only 35 have compressors.

The MPNG got into the act from April 2001. Rajeev Sharma, the then managing director of IGL who refused to toe its line, was dismissed. The lines kept getting longer, but the MPNG got only five daughter stations (stations without a compressor) converted to daughter-booster stations (stations with a compressor) between April and July 2001.

In April 2001, IGL had assured the EPCA that its total dispensing capacity is and will remain ahead of demand and by August all daughter stations will be converted to daughter-booster stations. Compressors, ordered from Argentina, were already on sea en route to India. Now it says that all daughter stations will be converted to daughter-booster stations only by January 2002 .

Then there is Naik's threat to raise natural gas prices on account of large investments and losses incurred by IGL. Can any company incur losses with such a high demand for its product, over 100 per cent utilisation of its installed dispensing capacity, and the fact that there is no subsidy on CNG. Indeed, as can be expected, the annual report of the IGL shows that the company has been making a profit since its inception. Founded in late 1998, it had a net profit of Rs 40.5 lakh in 1999-2000 and Rs 1.8 crore in 2000-2001. Of course, when Naik wags the CNG cost tag don't expect him to link it with the countervailing health costs of air pollution, conservatively estimated by the World Bank at Rs 1,000 crore per annum in Delhi. In any case the public incentive for CNG comes not out of the price of CNG but in the price difference between CNG and petrol or diesel. The government can play an important role through taxation measures to keep polluting fuels more expensive. But don't expect Naik to touch diesel, the holy cow.

Naik cries foul about gas supply when, under the aegis of his own ministry, massive expansion plans for gas pipelines have advanced considerably. While any possibility of disruption in supply of gas is very remote, it is possible to store natural gas in several ways and would be desirable. But the MPNG has paid no attention to developing such contingency plans even after raising the fear of breakdown of gas pipelines. Aren't these contingency plans necessary in any case - for users of CNG like power and fertilizer plants, for households using gas for cooking, and, of course, for buses, regardless of whether one-third buses of Delhi run on CNG or all? Or has the government already made up its mind to supply natural gas as erratically as electricity? Gas storage is routinely undertaken in all Western countries to meet the peak demand for gas for heating households during the winter season. During off-peak periods, part of the pipeline gas is converted to liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is then stored in large tanks. The pipeline itself stores an enormous amount of gas. Natural gas can also be stored in depleted aquifers or underground caverns. Surely, our engineers who can make nuclear bombs and missiles and store used uranium from power plants, can learn how to store natural gas. Unfortunately, Naik doesn't think his engineers are that capable.

All these issues will now keep hanging till the Supreme Court takes a decision. Then the wonderful politician will cry 'judicial activism'.

There are only two bus manufacturers in the country -- Telco and Ashok Leyland. Between the two of them they will share the large cng bus market of Delhi and elsewhere. While Ashok Leyland looks at it as a business opportunity and is supportive of cng , Telco would prefer to scuttle it. Thanks to cng , Ashok Leyland has made a big foray into the bus market in Delhi, the traditional market of Telco.

Telco's preference for diesel is so deep that even in the last court hearing of August 17, 2001, when the attention of the court was entirely focused on implementation of the cng order, Telco filed yet another affidavit to push for Euro II diesel buses and contest the epca 's clean fuels report. Telco has asked for a reassessment of the epca recommendations on the basis that one of its members, Anil Agarwal, also the Centre for Science and Environment (cse) chairperson, is biased. The bulky affidavit has several articles from Down To Earth and various publications by Agarwal attached. Telco argues, "there is a real danger that Mr Anil Agarwal at the time of participating in the deliberations, preparing and signing of the Report on Clean Fuels dated July, 2001, was or could have been influenced by an unconscious but settled prejudice against diesel." It further adds, "The tone of his articles and trenchancy with which he expresses his views which are so firmly held that it would not be possible for him to make the Report with an open mind." As the epca report was a unanimous one, Telco, therefore, implies that all the other four members are people with a very nimble mind and Agarwal can just wave a magic wand on them.

The Telco affidavit is a direct assault against the epca and is vitriolic against Agarwal. Raising doubts in fact is a typical combat strategy of Fali S Nariman, Telco's eminent counsel. Nariman has tried doing this twice before. First time he attacked Jagdish Khattar, managing director, Maruti Udyog Ltd, also a member of the epca , representing the auto industry. In the hearing of April 29, 1999, when the Supreme Court was discussing restricting diesel cars in Delhi, Nariman had said with great drama, "My lords, if diesel is polluting so is petrol. Both should be restricted." He insinuated that the epca report was against diesel because Khattar is a "petrol man". Maruti indeed produces mostly petrol vehicles. Khattar was so hurt that he wanted to resign from the epca but its other members had to persuade him not to.

The second time came when cse lawyer asked for the admission of its affidavit seeking a comprehensive action plan to control particulate pollution in Delhi, Telco opposed its admission. In its own affidavit of January 2000 pleading against the admission of cse 's affidavit, Telco had again accused Agarwal of being a biased member. "He (Agarwal) has disqualified himself by his own acts and conduct from participating in the deliberations of the statutory committee and signing its reports." Telco clearly does not like a 'brazen' member of the civil society participating in a government committee who publicly discusses the challenges the country faces in controlling air pollution. One would have thought this would be welcomed as 'transparency' and thus open to public challenge and debate. But, clearly, Telco appears to prefer faceless bureaucrats who only operate behind the scenes.

Its interesting that so far Nariman's own conflict of interest has not been much talked about. From the time that the epca recommended a restriction on plying of private diesel-driven vehicles in Delhi in 1999 to the time the three-judge bench took stock of the order on converting diesel buses to cng on August 17, 2001, Nariman has persistently argued in favour of diesel. But Nariman is also a Rajya Sabha member where he is expected to pursue public interest. During the Rajya Sabha discussions in August 2001 over the cng mess in Delhi, he failed to make the house appreciate the cng initiative of the Supreme Court or project the public health concerns raised by various people over diesel. On the contrary, when asked by the deputy chairperson if the minister can appeal for low sulphur diesel to the court, he promptly gave a supportive affirmation saying, "I think he should."

Every effort by cse to meet him as a Member of Parliament (mp) failed.

The Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi is a prestigious institution. It has a Henry Ford chair in its Transportation Risk Injury Prevention Programme (tripp) funded by the Ford Motor Company, which also has interest in producing diesel vehicles in India. This prestigious chair is occupied by eminent 'transport management' expert Dinesh Mohan. He is a very unhappy man today. cng has created too many problems for him. It has come in the way of his grandiose plan to bring in low floor, specially designed, diesel-run urban buses.

Even in mid-June 2001, after all the mayhem on Delhi's roads in early April 2001, the Delhi government brought in an expensive, air conditioned low-floor diesel bus as a trial. This cost the state exchequer a staggering Rs 36 lakh as against Rs 16 lakh for a new cng bus. This too was done despite the express Supreme Court order in March-April 2001 that no more diesel buses will be registered in Delhi.

Dinesh Mohan has, as they say, in high society, an attitude. He loves to find problems with everything. However, attitudes apart, Dinesh Mohan has some good points to make. To epca he said with great emotions, that the move to cng would push Delhi's bus transport 20 years behind the times. Everybody is moving to low floor buses. Furthermore,

• Over 60 per cent of the passenger trips in Delhi are made by buses. We should promote the use of buses and get even more people into them.

• If the costs of public transport increase, people will switch to scooters. There will be even greater mayhem on the roads. Therefore, transport costs should be kept low.

When Agarwal, a member of the epca told Mohan, that while he agreed entirely with his suggestions on the improvement of public transport in Delhi, including the introduction of low floor buses, how could he reach the conclusion that cng buses should be stopped because they would increase the costs of public transport when he himself has pointed out that the minimum cost of a low floor bus would be at least twice more than a current diesel bus and over 1.5 times a cng bus?

"Well, we will have to tax private vehicles to subsidise public transport," said Mohan. "Then, can't the same be done to subsidise the capital cost of cng buses, where the overall increase in operational cost per kilometre is not more than 8 per cent?" pointed out Agarwal. " epca 's recommendations have already included concerns about improvement of public transport. The Supreme Court also wants to strengthen bus transport. In 1998, there were 6,000 buses. The court ordered an increase to 10,000, but in order to reduce pollution said that they should move to cng . Future induction of buses could be cng low-floor buses as long as the Delhi government is prepared to cross-subsidise them."

Mohan is a prestigious Henry Ford professor. He is too exalted to integrate or discuss integration.

But he is quite happy to take money for an anti- cng study from an anti- cng company. Indian Oil Corporation. Mohan has good supporters. R K Pachauri of teri writing in The Times of India says, "The recent study by iit Delhi clearly shows that the cng changeover as being implemented will actually increase certain forms of pollution. The cng zealots, of course, discount these findings because it was funded by Indian Oil, and, therefore, assume that it must have corrupted the professors who undertook the research."

For Mohan and Pachauri obviously there is no concept as 'conflict of interest'. As one us book on the role of industry-funded anti-climate change academics was titled, "Trust me! I am an expert."

But then what does Mohan say in his ioc study? He says that cng is not a better option than Euro II diesel buses running on 500 ppm sulphur. His conclusions are based on the traffic flow measurements at Vikas Marg, Nanak Pura and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (aiims) Crossing that show no major differences in total emissions due to changes in the present traffic mix assumed to have happened with the introduction of the high cost cng bus programme.

He assumes that the cng conversion will hike bus fares and this will lead to a shift to two-wheelers. Even a 5 per cent shift in commuting demand to two-wheelers will increase carbon monoxide emissions by 18 per cent, hydrocarbon emissions by up to 25 per cent. If there is a shift of 15 per cent, particulate emissions will go up by 1.5 per cent.

If indeed his assumptions are right, he could argue for subsiding the cng buses by taxing polluting vehicles like scooters and polluting fuels like diesel.

Other experts have already questioned Mohan's study. S A Dutta, scientist in the Central Pollution Control Board, says, "The study is not based on emission measurements. It is based on a model using traffic flow measurements at busy traffic locations. It is based on assumptions that do not hold much water." Media reports on the study were carefully carried on the day of the Supreme Court hearing on August 17, 2001. During the hearing, chief justice, A S Anand, stated, "Lobbies are at work and are trying to get their pound of flesh."

Tata Energy Research Institute(TERI): Ultrafine confused
Like the mpng , teri suddenly became active in March 2001 arguing in favour of ulsd and against cng . At a time, when the entire transport system of the city was in disarray, teri 's alternative caught the imagination of the detractors of cng . What is ulsd ? It means ultra low sulphur diesel with about 10-30 ppm or 0.001 per cent to 0.003 per cent sulphur diesel. What is the advantage of ulsd ? By itself, it is a polluting fuel but because of the extremely low sulphur content a particulate trap can work efficiently which brings down particulate emissions almost close to cng .

But is it produced in India? "No." Will the mpng promise to produce it? "No way. Its not needed. It is too expensive. And just importing it for one city is logistically impossible." This is what the babus of mpng told epca . So how will we get ulsd ?

But does teri really want ulsd ? Only in public. Privately, just drop the 'U', lsd (500 ppm sulphur diesel on which no particulate trap can be used) is good enough. After all, its just a difference of a zero. The epca invited teri to present its views. teri cited, at length, a study conducted by the New York State department of environmental conservation along with Johnson and Matthey, manufacturers of continuously regenerating traps (crts), which show that emissions from diesel buses using 30 ppm sulphur (0.003 per cent sulphur) diesel with a particulate trap are comparable to cng buses.

Excellent. But then what was teri 's conclusion after citing this data? "Introduce new Euro II compliant diesel buses with diesel oxidation catalysts and 500 ppm sulphur diesel in case cng buses are not available in required number and timeframe." Only teri can explain how its presentation leads to this conclusion.

In August 2001, teri got into a spat with the Central Pollution Control Board when it released a study that the move to cng has not made any impact on the air quality as of yet and that its monitoring shows that the air quality has deteriorated after cng vehicles have come on the road.

Talk about politicians enlightening the public. The cng issue has become a slanging match for politicians in Delhi.

Each party looks for its own lobby of transporters blaming the other for the mess and joining the bus operators strike on August 10, 2001. Transporter Harish Sabherwal told the press, "We would have joined the Congress if they were sympathetic to our cause. However the Delhi mp s from bjp came to offer support." On the other hand, Shyam Lal Gola, president of Delhi Bus Ekta Manch, alleged that bjp was responsible for the present mess. "Madan Lal Khurana has forgotten that it was in his tenure that the Supreme Court ruled that cng is the best available option for green fuel."

Madan Lal Khurana, bjp national vice president, is very worried that bjp could lose the next elections in Delhi. He is, therefore, leading rallies and organising transporters' strikes bringing even greater woes to the public of Delhi. He promised the restive transporters a status quo and that he would get the Union government to issue an ordinance favouring low sulphur diesel (lsd) over cng . His heart bleeds for the autodrivers who stand in long queues. But he never says that is his party colleague, Union minister for petroleum and natural gas, Ram Naik, who is creating all the confusion by raising the bogey of inadequate gas to hinder implementation of the court order. Khurana has also remained silent about the dismal track record of the Union transport minister, B C Khanduri, another party colleague in framing appropriate safety and emissions guidelines for cng vehicles. His public position is to blame the Congress government in Delhi which never informed Naik that so many people were converting to cng .

But, sadly for Khurana his party leader, prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, law minister, Arun Jaitley, and environment minister, T R Baalu, disagreed with the idea of an ordinance -- a real loss of face for Khurana. Jaitley said that such an ordinance would be an insult to the Supreme Court. Baalu said that cng was a good option for Delhi and stood by epca , an authority set up by his ministry.

Instead of misguiding transporters, Khurana could have easily taken the Delhi government to task for not providing fiscal incentives (like exemption of sales tax, low interest loans, etc) for those buying or converting to cng buses, just as it had done for autos and taxis under Supreme Court orders. But for that he needed to care about Delhi's air and our health. That's asking too much intelligence from the likes of politicos like him.

Soon after the March-April orders of the Supreme Court, several hundred private cng buses suddenly came on the roads. Their fares were the same as Delhi Transport Corporation buses. Thus, putting a lie to arguments of Mohan and teri that cng buses cannot work within the current fare structure if the current cng and diesel prices are not touched.

Now, there is a sharp divide between the diesel buswalas and the cng buswalas. Diesel walas are resorting to pressure tactics including dharnas and sloganeering in front of the Supreme Court and calling strikes. cngwalas are keeping away. With the politicisation of the issue even diesel walas stand divided along the lines of their political affiliation. The rift was most apparent during the strike called on August 28, 2001. While the bjp -backed transporters' lobby tried to make the strike a success, the Congress affiliated unions made their task difficult. Congress-backed Federation of Transport Unions Congress refused to participate in the strike.

The cngwalas are willing to invest in cng buses. For example, M M Pal Singh Goldi, chairperson, City Life Line Travels Private Limited, has already bought 100 cng buses. Although he is willing to invest further, the long queues are keeping him back. More bus operators like him would probably switch over to cng if the government gives incentives to the operators. Goldi's only problem with the present situation is the long hours that his buses have to stand in queues to refuel.

Due to government laxity several operators who had been proactive and invested in cng buses are now backing out and making distress sale due to losses incurred. For example, bus operators like Charan Kamal Soni who owns as many as 45 cng buses has sold four of them in August this year. "I never wanted to sell the buses but there is no choice. I cannot recall a single day when my buses have waited for less than 18 hours at the filling station." Meanwhile, the Delhi Contract Bus Association has even moved the Supreme Court to demand compensation for the losses due to unavailability of gas.

Fourth Estate's Faux Pas
The detractors of cng have all been on the roll arguing that the experts who recommended cng did not know their science or public policy. The confusion has confounded our media, making people feel that there is an easy alternative, which has not been considered, serving the interests of the diesel lobby. Here are some gems:

l Economic Times, April 24, 2001 (On cng ...and the gavel's great error): "There is also the issue of ulsd , which could have done a similar job at lower cost."

Fact: ulsd is not available in India. It will have to be used in a euro II bus, whose costs will be higher than the current diesel bus and a particulate trap costing at least Rs. 1.5-2 lakh would have to be fitted.

Moreover, ulsd would be more expensive per litre than current diesel. Thus, capital cost of a ulsd bus would be quite close to that of a cng bus and operational cost much higher. On the other hand, a cng bus has only a higher capital cost (which can be taken care by a few one-time fiscal incentives), but operational costs are lower.

l Economic Times, April 25, 2001 (If cng 's the best why isn't the world using it): "Says Mr Shivraj Singh, joint secretary in the Union petroleum ministry, " cng is not the only option for a clean fuel -- ulsd , already being supplied to the capital, is just as emission-efficient.""

Fact: Trust Shivraj Singh, Naik's point babu to destroy the cng effort. Maybe ulsd is already being supplied to the capital. Singh is an ias officer and he is, of course, privy to information that nobody else has.

• India Today, August 20, 2001: "Though data on emission from various fuels vary widely, depending on the sources, the ultra low sulphur diesel (ulsd , also called Euro III) compares reasonably well with cng when fitted with a special filtering device. cng , as compared to ulsd , to be brought in by 2004-5 emits more carbon oxide, less nitrogen oxide and marginally higher particulate matter." (The article cites a chart from a teri report in which ulsd has been defined as 0.05 per cent sulphur diesel).

Fact: Euro III diesel is not ulsd . It is 350 ppm sulphur diesel which cannot take a filtering device. 0.05 per cent sulphur diesel is not ulsd either. It is 500 ppm diesel which also cannot take a filtering device and is already being sold in Delhi. Interestingly, India Today , in its earlier report of April 16, 2001, says, " ulsd is diesel that has a sulphur content of just 0.005 per cent (or 50 ppm)." But in just four months it forgot its earlier numbers.

l Hindustan Times , August 10, 2001 (editorial): "...it is painfully clear that while the Supreme Court had the right instinct about making Delhi's air clean, it did not seriously look at the availability of cng ... it obliged the city to switch to a single fuel mode -- a risky proposition -- at a time when ulsd , which is low on pollution as cng , was about to enter the market."

Fact: ulsd has not entered the market and is unlikely to enter in the near future. The editor is confused with lsd . We hope the paper knows the difference between lsd and ulsd .

l Hindustan Times, August 31, 2001: " cng vehicular emissions release micro-pollutants, can cause cancer/lung infections. Diesel vehicles emit macropollutants, mainly cause asthma." The paper prominently displayed this information but gave no source. No attempt was made to cross-check this information.

Fact: Diesel, petrol and cng emissions, all have particles, mainly microparticles. Only diesel particles are listed as carcinogenic by organisations like the California Air Resources Board and World Health Organisation. No agency in the world has listed petrol or cng particles as carcinogenic. This is because diesel particles are coated by the highly carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (pahs). One pah , benzopyrene, is what gives cigarette smoke its carcinogenicity. cng engines do produce microparticles but far less than diesel. cng by itself does not produce microparticles. They are produced because of the lubricants introduced into the dry gas to run the engine properly. Proper control of lubricants greatly reduces cng particles. On the other hand, as the diesel engine is improved, studies have confirmed that they produce more microparticles unless you put a particulate trap on it, which then needs ulsd.

Principals without principles
Confusion reigns in Delhi's schools, especially in the minds of their principals. Children who had been brandishing placards to demand their right to clean air and speedy implementation of the cng order in Delhi a while ago, are now hoisting placards blaming cng for the mess in their lives. They even made a photogenic protest in front of the Supreme Court. Of course, cng critic Madan Lal Khurana was present. Even some school principals, who are supposed to ensure that our children are taught to respect the environment, argue that cng is not good.

The cng bathwater is indeed bad. But should you throw the cng baby out with it? One problem is cost. cng is too expensive. They are not safe also, they say. The criticism from rich private schools is worse because they have to invest in cng buses. Municipal schools are served by dtc . Getting cng is, of course, a very serious problem. "Our drivers spend more time in cng queues than they spend behind the wheel of the buses," says S Kumar of Blue Bells School. Jyoti Bose of Springdales says, "One bus takes about 27 hours to return with a full tank. The driver and conductor are not able to sleep for days on end. Naturally, it's unsafe to expect the groggy driver to do the morning trip." But V K Williams, principal of Mount Carmel School, told a public debate, "The idea of restricting the choice of the fuel to only cng is ridiculous. The Supreme Court has also inexplicably closed its ears to the words of wisdom on the fuel option from quarters other than the Bhure Lal Committee." Representatives of school managements and principals on August 8, 2001 met Delhi transport secretary to demand at least dedicated time slots for refuelling cng school buses. So there are solutions?